Pentax High ISO Gallery - post here

Jewelltrail · 12-20-2009, 12:07 AM

Quote:

RobG: The southern sky at ISO 1600, 131 second exposure. Pentax K200D, Pentax DA 16-45 at f4.

Love that shot--thanks!

Quote:

Pentaxor K55/1.8 taken at ISO 3200. camera jpeg w/o NR at all.

Excellent--a keeper for the ages and it really does not look like a high ISO shot at all.

flockofbirds · 12-20-2009, 02:48 AM

K200D @ iso1600

pcarfan · 12-20-2009, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

K55/1.8 taken at ISO 3200. camera jpeg w/o NR at all.

Very nice...what is your jpeg settings for all the parameters that can be set in camera. like the saturation, hue, high/lowkey adjust, contrast, fine sharpness/sharpness etc.

thank you

Pentaxor · 12-20-2009, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Love that shot--thanks!

Excellent--a keeper for the ages and it really does not look like a high ISO shot at all.

Originally posted by pcarfan

Very nice...what is your jpeg settings for all the parameters that can be set in camera. like the saturation, hue, high/lowkey adjust, contrast, fine sharpness/sharpness etc.

thank you

forgot to mention that this was a pulled exposure (ETTR) as well !

the only adjustment I did was setting the highkey(+5,) fine sharpness(+2) and contrast(+2), although by doing so, I'm also threading the waters to a more intensed noise. glad to have the noise worked out just fine.

erickallemeyn · 12-20-2009, 10:58 AM

K-x ISO 1600. No banding or noise in the blacks

UnknownVT · 12-20-2009, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by UnknownVT

I can use ISO3200 on the K-x with impunity....

My previous K-x shot at ISO3200 was in relatively "good" lighting -
f/4 @ 1/60, ISO3200

These were under much more trying conditions -

f/3.5 @ 1/20, ISO3200 - that's 2-stops lower/darker

and this shot:

f/4 @ 1/13, ISO3200 - which is just over 2 stops darker.....

1/13 is a shutter speed I often (have to) shoot at - but it does clearly show subject movement - sometimes undesirable - but as in this shot it is what makes it (for me) - the left front drum details show how well the SR is working too.

I do shoot JPGs - and shows how well the AWB works too - in this case I switched from strong tungsten correction in AWB to subtle correction (default, 1) because I liked the warmer tone.

planedriver · 12-20-2009, 01:13 PM

This camera impresses me. K-x iso5000 DA16-45 29mm 1/25 f4 in camera NR medium converted from RAW. Some cropping and WB correction.

Andras

pcarfan · 12-20-2009, 03:12 PM

Pentaxor, thanks for the tips. The highkey makes the jpeg looks better as it brightens it without having to do exposure compensation. This way the shutter speed is not lowered but the scene is still brighter and thus less noise. Thank you for the tips.

But, I still prefer RAW conversion. Iso 1600 is a breeze with the k-7 jpeg, and with RAW and NR iso 3200 is very useable. I just took some quick hand held shots and compared.

Fairly low light for f2, iso 3200 and 1/15. To me the RAW conversion has more depth and reality to it, even at iso 3200.

Jpeg (normal exposure, not ETTR and pulled back)

RAW with NR

100% crops of the RAW NR image

I wonder whether K-x can give this at iso 6400 for a 1-stop advantage.

RonMexico · 12-20-2009, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Ron Boggs

Recently needed to do quicky images for daily press releases to newspapers and websites. Shot JPEG's at the lowest resolution available in the K10d (2 megapixels I believe) and at 1600 iso. Don't know anything about noise reduction so submitted to the papers without editing other than minor cropping and perhaps a bit of exposure correction. Ended up having several images published over a weeks time by as many as 7 different newspapers (for one of the images) so extremely low quality high iso cruddy ol' JPEG's apparently aren't too bad from Pentax digital cameras. Note that I had never previously gone beyond 400 iso nor ever shot at less than max megapixels...nor had I ever done any sports photography, so the "experiment" worked!

What did you shoot that wrestling match with?

erickallemeyn · 12-20-2009, 05:27 PM

Just imagine where we'll be in 5 years!

New FF sensors @ 102,800 ISO. When is that ever even necessary!? Photos of bats?

flockofbirds · 12-20-2009, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by erickallemeyn

Just imagine where we'll be in 5 years!

New FF sensors @ 102,800 ISO. When is that ever even necessary!? Photos of bats?

For taking pictures of darkness.

jgredline · 12-20-2009, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by erickallemeyn

Just imagine where we'll be in 5 years!

New FF sensors @ 102,800 ISO. When is that ever even necessary!? Photos of bats?

5 years, I can do it now with my D700 and I keep reading the D3X kills the D700.

Pentaxor · 12-20-2009, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by flockofbirds

For taking pictures of darkness.

that would be the work of a night-vision camera or IR.

Pentaxor · 12-20-2009, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by pcarfan

Pentaxor, thanks for the tips. The highkey makes the jpeg looks better as it brightens it without having to do exposure compensation. This way the shutter speed is not lowered but the scene is still brighter and thus less noise. Thank you for the tips.

But, I still prefer RAW conversion. Iso 1600 is a breeze with the k-7 jpeg, and with RAW and NR iso 3200 is very useable. I just took some quick hand held shots and compared.

Fairly low light for f2, iso 3200 and 1/15. To me the RAW conversion has more depth and reality to it, even at iso 3200.

I wonder whether K-x can give this at iso 6400 for a 1-stop advantage.

no problem. just keeping those K-7 owners and potential would-be owners happy and don't feel agitated by all these complaints and scary stories about ISO numbers and where the the K-7 ranks.

just let you and the camera do the talking and forget about the numbers.

RAW is definitely better. right now, I'm just out of HardDisk space and memory card space. and my RAW converters are going nuts as of the moment. dunno why.

regarding the k-x, it is better at High ISO but I would rather wait for a full-frame with a much higher ISO range. a 12800 output with an equivalent of a 400 ISO would be just great.

erickallemeyn · 12-20-2009, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by jgredline

5 years, I can do it now with my D700 and I keep reading the D3X kills the D700.

I meant: "FF sensors can now do 102k ISO, imagine where we'll be in 5 years!"
Poor sentence structure, my bad :ugh:

12-20-2009, 12:29 PM	#306
UnknownVT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	Originally posted by UnknownVT I can use ISO3200 on the K-x with impunity.... My previous K-x shot at ISO3200 was in relatively "good" lighting - f/4 @ 1/60, ISO3200 These were under much more trying conditions - f/3.5 @ 1/20, ISO3200 - that's 2-stops lower/darker and this shot: f/4 @ 1/13, ISO3200 - which is just over 2 stops darker..... 1/13 is a shutter speed I often (have to) shoot at - but it does clearly show subject movement - sometimes undesirable - but as in this shot it is what makes it (for me) - the left front drum details show how well the SR is working too. I do shoot JPGs - and shows how well the AWB works too - in this case I switched from strong tungsten correction in AWB to subtle correction (default, 1) because I liked the warmer tone. Last edited by UnknownVT; 12-20-2009 at 12:36 PM.

12-20-2009, 03:12 PM	#308
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Pentaxor, thanks for the tips. The highkey makes the jpeg looks better as it brightens it without having to do exposure compensation. This way the shutter speed is not lowered but the scene is still brighter and thus less noise. Thank you for the tips. But, I still prefer RAW conversion. Iso 1600 is a breeze with the k-7 jpeg, and with RAW and NR iso 3200 is very useable. I just took some quick hand held shots and compared. Fairly low light for f2, iso 3200 and 1/15. To me the RAW conversion has more depth and reality to it, even at iso 3200. Jpeg (normal exposure, not ETTR and pulled back) RAW with NR 100% crops of the RAW NR image I wonder whether K-x can give this at iso 6400 for a 1-stop advantage. Last edited by pcarfan; 12-20-2009 at 04:10 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How to post high resolution photo here?	Underbridge	Pentax Medium Format	5	12-25-2012 08:56 PM
People K-5 high ISO... how high can we really go...	igor	Post Your Photos!	2	03-24-2012 01:10 AM
Is there a high iso gallery for K-7?	justtakingpics	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	05-31-2010 05:32 PM
K-7 high ISO vs K20D high ISO	supa007	Pentax DSLR Discussion	72	05-10-2010 04:24 PM
Pentax k20d High ISO Photo Gallery	PentaxPoke	Pentax DSLR Discussion	68	02-18-2009 05:19 AM

12-20-2009, 12:07 AM	#301
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180 Original Poster	Quote: RobG: The southern sky at ISO 1600, 131 second exposure. Pentax K200D, Pentax DA 16-45 at f4. Love that shot--thanks! Quote: Pentaxor K55/1.8 taken at ISO 3200. camera jpeg w/o NR at all. Excellent--a keeper for the ages and it really does not look like a high ISO shot at all.

12-20-2009, 02:48 AM	#302
flockofbirds Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Oregon, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 178	K200D @ iso1600

12-20-2009, 05:18 AM	#303
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by Pentaxor K55/1.8 taken at ISO 3200. camera jpeg w/o NR at all. Very nice...what is your jpeg settings for all the parameters that can be set in camera. like the saturation, hue, high/lowkey adjust, contrast, fine sharpness/sharpness etc. thank you

12-20-2009, 09:54 AM	#304
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Jewelltrail Love that shot--thanks! Excellent--a keeper for the ages and it really does not look like a high ISO shot at all. Originally posted by pcarfan Very nice...what is your jpeg settings for all the parameters that can be set in camera. like the saturation, hue, high/lowkey adjust, contrast, fine sharpness/sharpness etc. thank you forgot to mention that this was a pulled exposure (ETTR) as well ! the only adjustment I did was setting the highkey(+5,) fine sharpness(+2) and contrast(+2), although by doing so, I'm also threading the waters to a more intensed noise. glad to have the noise worked out just fine.

12-20-2009, 10:58 AM	#305
erickallemeyn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 112	K-x ISO 1600. No banding or noise in the blacks

12-20-2009, 01:13 PM	#307
planedriver Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Velence, Hungary Posts: 664	This camera impresses me. K-x iso5000 DA16-45 29mm 1/25 f4 in camera NR medium converted from RAW. Some cropping and WB correction. Andras

12-20-2009, 03:54 PM	#309
RonMexico Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 215	Originally posted by Ron Boggs Recently needed to do quicky images for daily press releases to newspapers and websites. Shot JPEG's at the lowest resolution available in the K10d (2 megapixels I believe) and at 1600 iso. Don't know anything about noise reduction so submitted to the papers without editing other than minor cropping and perhaps a bit of exposure correction. Ended up having several images published over a weeks time by as many as 7 different newspapers (for one of the images) so extremely low quality high iso cruddy ol' JPEG's apparently aren't too bad from Pentax digital cameras. Note that I had never previously gone beyond 400 iso nor ever shot at less than max megapixels...nor had I ever done any sports photography, so the "experiment" worked! What did you shoot that wrestling match with?

12-20-2009, 05:27 PM	#310
erickallemeyn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 112	Just imagine where we'll be in 5 years! New FF sensors @ 102,800 ISO. When is that ever even necessary!? Photos of bats?

12-20-2009, 06:06 PM	#311
flockofbirds Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Oregon, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 178	Originally posted by erickallemeyn Just imagine where we'll be in 5 years! New FF sensors @ 102,800 ISO. When is that ever even necessary!? Photos of bats? For taking pictures of darkness.

12-20-2009, 06:45 PM	#312
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by erickallemeyn Just imagine where we'll be in 5 years! New FF sensors @ 102,800 ISO. When is that ever even necessary!? Photos of bats? 5 years, I can do it now with my D700 and I keep reading the D3X kills the D700.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2009, 06:59 PM	#313
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by flockofbirds For taking pictures of darkness. that would be the work of a night-vision camera or IR.

12-20-2009, 07:07 PM	#314
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by pcarfan Pentaxor, thanks for the tips. The highkey makes the jpeg looks better as it brightens it without having to do exposure compensation. This way the shutter speed is not lowered but the scene is still brighter and thus less noise. Thank you for the tips. But, I still prefer RAW conversion. Iso 1600 is a breeze with the k-7 jpeg, and with RAW and NR iso 3200 is very useable. I just took some quick hand held shots and compared. Fairly low light for f2, iso 3200 and 1/15. To me the RAW conversion has more depth and reality to it, even at iso 3200. I wonder whether K-x can give this at iso 6400 for a 1-stop advantage. no problem. just keeping those K-7 owners and potential would-be owners happy and don't feel agitated by all these complaints and scary stories about ISO numbers and where the the K-7 ranks. just let you and the camera do the talking and forget about the numbers. RAW is definitely better. right now, I'm just out of HardDisk space and memory card space. and my RAW converters are going nuts as of the moment. dunno why. regarding the k-x, it is better at High ISO but I would rather wait for a full-frame with a much higher ISO range. a 12800 output with an equivalent of a 400 ISO would be just great.

12-20-2009, 07:16 PM	#315
erickallemeyn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 112	Originally posted by jgredline 5 years, I can do it now with my D700 and I keep reading the D3X kills the D700. I meant: "FF sensors can now do 102k ISO, imagine where we'll be in 5 years!" Poor sentence structure, my bad :ugh: